- 12 -
appropriateness of collateral estoppel in essentially factual
contexts." Building on the Supreme Court's analysis in Montana,
this Court identified five requirements that must be satisfied
for collateral estoppel to apply. See Peck v. Commissioner,
supra at 166-167; see also Commissioner v. Sunnen, supra at
599-600; Popp Telcom v. American Sharecom, Inc., supra at 939;
Gammill v. Commissioner, supra at 613-615; Kersting v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-197.
As articulated in Peck, the following requirements must be
satisfied to invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel: (1) The
issue in the second suit must be identical in all respects with
the one decided in the first suit; (2) there must be a final
judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the
party against whom collateral estoppel is invoked must have been
a party or in privity with a party to the prior judgment; (4) the
parties actually must have litigated the issue and its resolution
must have been essential to the prior decision; and (5) the
controlling facts and applicable legal rules must remain
unchanged from those in the prior litigation. See Peck v.
Commissioner, supra at 166-167. The party asserting collateral
estoppel as an affirmative defense, in this case respondent,
bears the burden of proof.10 See Rule 142(a).
10As required by Rule 39, respondent affirmatively pleaded
collateral estoppel by an amendment to answer filed by leave of
(continued...)
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011